Thank you, sir. So, is there purpose to their lack of archiving? Obviously, they could do it with ease. Would an archive just contribute to confusion, and that explains why they don't make an archive available? Is it a case of if you weren't around at the time, you're better off just sticking with the current editions of the books?

Everyone, feel free to answer this one.

If you want to quote mutliple posts, then click on the icon directly to the right of the quote button that looks like this http://forum.officiating.com/images/...iquote_off.gif. It will turn orange when you have clicked it meaning that post will be quoted. If you want to quote multiple parts of a single post, then highlight the pertain part and copy it. Then when you are replying to the post press the quote button. It should look like this http://forum.officiating.com/images/editor/quote.gif. Then paste the copied portion in between the quotes. Keep copying the parts that you want to quote and using that quote button until you're finished.



Why don't they archive it? We don't know and it's a question we've wondered for a while. Many of the interpretations seem to be still valid so it would make sense to keep them up. As far as we know, all the interpretations are valid unless a subsequent rule or rule overrides it.

No, 7.5.3(d) is not identical, because the interruption in my situation occurs "during a throw-in." 7.5.3(d) occurs duing a try; since the try is successful, the applicable rule is 4-36-2b, "a team is entitled to such."
Because you read into POI's definition at 2b what is not written there, you disregard Rule 7, the rule that governs TIs, and Resumption-of-Play Procedures. 7-5-7 is dispositive. Your entire hang-up with every substantive point we have debated in this thread stems from your reliance on your conceptualization of a mere definition in spite of other rules to the contrary. Nevada pointed this out to you. I thought you accepted his correction, but obviously not.

CB 7.5.3(d) interprets 7-5-7. It tells us that 7-5-7 does not strip the non-scoring team of a NDTI in the case of an IW when it occurs during a live ball, no team control, with a goal involved. These conditions are facts that are not altered by you referring to it as a "try". The material conditions are identical in both situations. As you pointed out, 7-5-7b mentions a couple of conditions in which the ND privilege is retained, but it does not say those are the only conditions where it is retained. If they intended what you are suggesting, they would have added the word "only". They are simply expressing a couple of notable examples, and do not say those two are exhaustive. Stating otherwise would be reading into the rules something not written, again. Your reading of 7-5-7b is disproven by CB 7.5.3(d), because the condition in CB 7.5.3(d) is not one of the conditions mentioned in 7-5-7b, yet ND is maintained, anyway. Why would it be retained before the goal, while the ball is in flight, but not after the goal while it is at the disposal of the non-scoring team? You can provide no material difference between those two situations, and I can provide those three material commonalities.

I'm not ignoring it; it's quite the indictment of your ability to read the rules, actually. 4-36-2c applies to situations where there is no team control, throw-in, or free throw involved.
Just quote 2c. 2c says nothing about self-exclusion in the case of TI or FT. You are folding 2b into 2c's parameters. Quote 2c in its entirety, and only 2c! Your APTI situation meets 2c, period. Forget 2b. Nothing says to ignore 2c if there is a TI involved. You are reading that in. If you just can't let go of 2b, think of 2b prescribing a TI, and 2c prescribing that the TI will be an APTI. No where does the language of the definition instruct us to ignore 2c when 2b works.

Got it.

I suppose so. In regard to their interpretations, how do you read their caveat, "They do not set aside nor modify any rule."?

I read it as saying that they're interpreting the rule.

But whatinthehell do I know?

Since no one here works for the NFHS, I guess you'll have to contact them directly. I encourage you to do so.

Not bad. Here's Welpe's favorite, though.
 

That may have gone without saying, Jurassic. I'm more interested in what Snaq seemed to be saying in posts 107 and 112, that these interpretations are never "designed" to change a rule, but sometimes do--in some sense. Obviously, if the publishing of these interpretations sometimes results in changing the existing interpretations of a significant number of officials, the effect approaches a rules change. If you've ever experienced that, yourself, do you always react with a "thank you" to the drafters for setting you straight, or have you sometimes determined they have changed a rule, and reject the interpretation on those grounds.

I would think that would have been done by predecessors, if not proactively offered by NFHS at some point in the past. If no one here knows, for sure, I'm guessing an answer would not be forthcoming as a result of my efforts, today. I'd be interested in an educated guess by some of you who have been around for a while, like Nevada, who had a friend on the Committee for four years. The real upshot, here, is do you all recommend I dig into those past interpretations, or are they better left in the past?

Hey Randy Brown
 

I googled your name for images and got this (not kidding). Is this you?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1360/...415c98fac4.jpg

If it buys me credibility, I confess--and I'm single.

If you try it without the safe search on, please don't post.

Sometimes, the interpretations develop into case plays. My past interpreter was on the rules committee for 4 years. I can ask him about past interpretations, but my best guess is that they may not be archived for the same reason you may not see old rules archived--it may lend to confusion if in fact rules had changed. An archivist would have to sort out which ones apply to up to date rules and which ones may no longer apply. Thus, you would not only need archived interpretations, but rules, case plays and POE from all of the same years and track which ones still apply and which ones do not.

You have zero credibility here, "that guy". And you have also illustrated here many times why you are single, and are likely to remain so. :)

A real sexist pig might say something crass and insensitive, like "Well sweetie, that's probably because you're so high maintenance."

But the Jurassic one would quickly put that cretin in his place."